This document was also discussed in the previous meeting; no new comments were raised. On a comment whether a separate guidelines for approval of new members is needed, the Chair responded that this is taken care in this document.

RDA Organisational Member agreement

The Chair summarised the input received before the meeting which was the following:

In the extensive discussion that followed the following points were discussed:

Larry Lannom iterated his point on members asking what fees are used for. His suggestion that the fees are used to subsidise the meetings to be able to keep the fee as low as possible was agreed.

The Chair clarified that the document is not just an application but rather an agreement between RDA and the organizational member, however it should be kept as simple as possible. The Chair added that an appendix is necessary describing the benefits of joining RDA and the return for the fees an organization member is paying for joining.

It was added that some part of the document such as the membership benefits are included in a web page that is referred to from the agreement document.

There were concerns about the agreement becoming a legal document; if this is the case then issues like duration, exit conditions and liability should be dealt with and lawyers will have to be involved.

Re. including Intellectual Property (IP) in the agreement, it was stated that the RDA outputs IP is dealt by another RDA group (IP Task Force) and that it was not deemed directly relevant with OAB, as organisational members do not go after IP.

The subscription model that is commonly used by libraries was seen as a good alternative for organisation members’ fees. This may not necessarily be a legal document. As not many companies were present in the meeting it was stated that these should also be consulted and also to be discussed internally in RDA.

It was clarified that Affiliate Members do not pay a fee and overall that the proposed fees for Organisational Members are reasonable. It was reminded that some level of fee for OMs is needed to guarantee sufficient commitment.

The option of a library or another department of a university joining RDA as Organisation Member was brought up, so as to use lower fees (note: 10K for > 250 employees, 2K for 50-250 employees and 1K for <50 employees).

It was clarified that participation to the plenaries is open, however a low registration fee is necessary so that people avoid to register and then not to show up.

The overall timeplan was presented, i.e. that the documents have to be completed in time for the next plenary (that is in March), meaning to be ready by February.

On a discussion whether there is clear separation of what each intended stream of fees is used for, it was felt that this would be restricting and challenging, and that it would be better to have a transparent accounting scheme (e.g.. in the RDA accounts all kinds of expenditures are written down). It was reminded that the 3 main streams are: 1. Funders (major part), 2. Organisational Members, 3. Plenary registrations. Ideas of how the fees are used for were raised, e.g., for developing nations participation in RDA.

Laurel Haak briefly presented the ORCID document and pointed out that it is not a very formal document. The Chair stated that such a level of formality is fine.

Mark Parsons stated that the reflections from the RDA Council chair is that the OAB should make specific recommendations and that MoUs include some specifics of *how* the organisations intend to collaborate. This point was agreed.

In the discussion that followed the subsequent points were raised:

The level of detail of the ORCID document was more in the right direction. However, not all MoUs have to be fully aligned, allowing variations and different cultures. The more differences can be accommodated, the more affiliates will be able to join. Still, it was agreed that some common shape is needed. Transparency is also important, e.g. being able to check the MoUs of other members.

Actions:

Chairs and secretariat: Come up with a next proposal on the legal document including the appendix.

4. Planning for the Organisational Assembly in Dublin March 2014

The Chair informed the participants that the organisation committee has reserved 45 minutes plenary time and asked for inputs and comments. It was clarified that the 45 minutes will be used for reporting (from the OAB business and statements from OMs) plus questions and answers should be included in these 45 minutes. There will be more time for the Organisational Assembly meeting in parallel (on its own and with other RDA groups). The feedback received was that the plenary time was appropriate and it was confirmed that extra time will be available in breakouts.

5. AOB

The following points were raised:

Mark Parsosns stated that from now on e-mails will also appear in the web as posts. Another alternative is to use the “post to group” button on the website (after logging in). The RDA secretariat is working on a user manual that will be available in the next timeframe.

It was agreed that the IOAB timeframe of two weeks is appropriate.

Separate meetings for the far-east timezones (GMT+10-+12) will be organised.

As Juan will be chairing the next meeting, he proposed two dates of 9 and 13 of December, the latter having more votes.

[Note: After the meeting a poll was created for the next meeting date as there were many people stated their unavailability for the proposed dates: http://www.meetomatic.com/respond.php?id=5J1FKN]. The date of the next meeting has been scheduled for Wednesday, 18 December at 16:00 GMT.